Nikon 16-85mm

Yardbent

Yardbent

Messages
7,771
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
hi
recently upgraded my D40 to a D5000
mainly interested in landscapes and B&W architecture

no kids, or portraits etc....so no 35mm or 50mm required
investigated an UWA 10-16 or 12-24 and decided "No"

presently have a Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 HSM [not IS] - well pleased

BUT has anyone got the Nikon AF-S 16-85mm ...
---- would like your appraisal

thanks
 
i know nothing about this lens , but have been considering it myself , they do seem bloody expensive though for some reason

sorry for being no help whatsoever
 
John

If you already own the 17-70 why would you want the 16-85is it cos of the VR or of the extra 1mm & 15mm :shrug:

Surely if your happy with the siggie then why change... Tis just a thought mate..
 
I fancy this lens but price is against it. The 18-105 kit lens is ok but the 16-85 is reckoned even by Rockwell to be better but not worth the money.....would also be interested in real life experiences.
 
mrgas said:
i know nothing about this lens , but have been considering it myself , they do seem bloody expensive though for some reason
sorry for being no help whatsoever
Click to expand...

:lol::lol:.....had a few replies over on AVF - seems to get a good review

if i do NOT buy an UWA, so saving £400, it wouldn't be too big a cash outlay to sell the Sigma and buy a new 16-85mm Nikon at £400

yes "new" as i have bought 2 used lens recently and been disappointed with condition
 
sorry to hijack your thread but whats the Sigma like ?
its another lens I've been looking at getting
 
I moved from Canon to Nikon earlier this year and purchased the 16-85.

I havent had chance to use it in anger but here are my views up to now.....

The lens is very plasticy which give you the worrying feeling it could break easily.

In this respect its rubbish compared to the Canon 17-85IS and not as good as a sigma 17-70 in my opinion which i had in Canon fit.

As far as image quality ive borrowed an 18-70 which gives similar results, no IS but horses for courses. When i tried the 18-105 i was very impressed, i purchased the 16-85 as i got quite a bit of discount to make it worthwhile.

Dont get hung up on the reviews.

Dave
 
Trig's said:
John

If you already own the 17-70 why would you want the 16-85is it cos of the VR or of the extra 1mm & 15mm :shrug:

Surely if your happy with the siggie then why change... Tis just a thought mate..
Click to expand...

agreed - the VR "may" be relevant as I have Dupuytren's contracture

however if I settle on ONE lens I lean towards Nikon - bit anal i suppose - it would become my only walk-about lens so thinking the 85mm would be useful as I may not be able to physically hold a 55-200 VR
 
mrgas said:
sorry to hijack your thread but whats the Sigma like ?
its another lens I've been looking at getting
Click to expand...

excellent - give me some time and I'll post a few shots

though I find posting at <200kb is crap
 
Dave Pickett said:
I fancy this lens but price is against it. The 18-105 kit lens is ok but the 16-85 is reckoned even by Rockwell to be better but not worth the money.....would also be interested in real life experiences.
Click to expand...

that's the age old prob --- money v IQ and versatility

I'll update the thread if i go 16-85 Nikon..................:thumbs:
 
dcash29 said:
and purchased the 16-85.......The lens is very plasticy which give you the worrying feeling it could break easily..........and not as good as a sigma 17-70 in my opinion .....Dave
Click to expand...

thanks for the info
I have lotsa shots with the Sigma 17-70 which need downloading and editing

will pick up the thread again once had a look
 
Just a thought but have you thought about the 18-200mm VR :shrug: or is that 2mm doing it for you as so to speak... As you can pick up a used one for the same "new" 16-85mm...
 
Trig's said:
Just a thought but have you thought about the 18-200mm VR :shrug: or is that 2mm doing it for you as so to speak... As you can pick up a used one for the same "new" 16-85mm...
Click to expand...

true ... will look into it.. our Ken R thinks they are the mutts nuts

sampled a 70-300mm VR at Currys to try on a D90 and it was too heavy for me
 
I've got the Nikon 16-85mm VR and I'm very happy with it. :)

I had the Nikon 18-70mm when I had the D70 and was very happy with it but the 16-85mm is a step beyond that. I like it so much that when I got my gear stolen a few months ago, I got another 16-85mm VR to replace it, never even give it a 2nd thought. ;)

I hadn't realised how much cheaper the Sigma 17-70mm was compared to the Nikon 16-85mm.:eek:

I would be interested to see the same pics taken with the Sigma 17-70mm and the Nikon 16-85mm if anyone has them, or has a link to them being compared side by side.
 
16mm- seems pointless with having the 17mm- as 1mm aint going to make much difference.

10-20 sigma would seem like a good idea but you seem to have discounted uwa lenses.
 
redhed17 said:
I
I hadn't realised how much cheaper the Sigma 17-70mm was compared to the Nikon 16-85mm......
Click to expand...

you have to be careful as to the comparison

my Sigma 17-70 is HSM [AF on D5000] but not Image-stabilization

the Nikon 16-85mm is AF-S and VR

dont have a prob with no VR/IS at shorter FL especially as I prefer landscapes
 
cowasaki said:
16mm- seems pointless with having the 17mm- as 1mm aint going to make much difference.

10-20 sigma would seem like a good idea but you seem to have discounted uwa lenses.
Click to expand...

it was more the fact of having a "Nikon" lens - said earlier, a bit anal about that.....:D

would like an UWA to try new techniques but as a pensioner there is a consideration regarding spending £400 for the occasional requirement

thanks....:)
 
The Nikon gets good reviews, but £400 for a F3.5-5.6 standard zoom? By the time you knock it down a stop to get good image quality you're looking at an F4.5-8.0..... way too slow for my liking, IS or not... :shrug:
 
It is not the VR or the f2.8 of the Sigma that I'd like to see compared just the sharpness and general image quality at similar apertures.

A comparison of the 16-17mm and 70-85mm differences would be nice too. I didn't have me 18-70mm and 16-85mm lenses at the same time to do a comparison between the focal lengths.
 
redhed17 said:
It is not the VR or the f2.8 of the Sigma that I'd like to see compared just the sharpness and general image quality at similar apertures. .
Click to expand...

ok will post tomorrow when the fumes of an Oz Shiraz have evaporated ..:lol:
 
DekHog said:
The Nikon gets good reviews, but £400 for a F3.5-5.6 standard zoom? By the time you knock it down a stop to get good image quality you're looking at an F4.5-8.0..... way too slow for my liking, IS or not... :shrug:
Click to expand...

Thats whats putting me off it , for £400 plus I'd want something a bit faster

the pricing on this lens doesnt fit in with the rest of the Nikon line up , not sure why though
 
Hi Yardbent, I'm in sympathy, had a D90/18-200VR, like a house brick . . . no, two house bricks around the neck! camera 650gsm, 18-200VR 600gsm!!!!

. . . reconsidered my position, what did I want from photography . . . I wanted best IQ on screen, I dont print much, never sell.

Trawled through the reviews, old and new, read relevant threads and had a look at uncle 'KR'. The D5000 is nearly 100gsm lighter than the D90, but where it matters is 'D90'. Dug around in my cupboard, came up with a Nikon18-70. Brilliant IQ, I crop a lot, I can crop the 18-70 to 50% with no obvious deterioration 'on screen', starting with a good image of course.

I'm a happy bunny, I have a light'ish walk about set up, that fits my needs, an ISO noise level that is tops, so if I am running out of 'f' numbers, I can compensate.

Not a setup that would 'suit a tog with aspirations':naughty: but as I'm far to old to worry about 'aspirations' . . . :shrug:

The rest of my now minimalist kit; Nikon f1.8 50mm with Kenko tubes for macro and a Sigma 70-300APO HSM for when I might??? need a bit more length. Neither the 50mm or the 70-300 have been out since last year!

I carry the D5000/18-70 in my 'man bag', so its 'have camera will travel' 99% of the time, shooting from the hip ;) :thumbs:

CJS
 
>>thinking the 85mm would be useful as I may not be able to physically hold a 55-200 VR<<

Not sure I understand the problem as the 55-200VR is 150gm lighter.
 
taz said:
>>thinking the 85mm would be useful as I may not be able to physically hold a 55-200 VR<<

Not sure I understand the problem as the 55-200VR is 150gm lighter.
Click to expand...

thanks for the research - I was concerned about camera shake at 200mm

may be able to see some at the Chester meet
 
I have the 16-85VR and it is my most used lens - great for walk-about and general purpose. I had the 18-70mm kit lens which is very good but wanted the extra WA (2mm makes a lot of difference), the extra length, and the VR, not because my hands are particularly shaky but because in poor light or windy conditions I was losing shots on the 18-70.

I am really pleased with it. I don't regard it as particularly plasticy and would agree with reviews that describe it as "well built", but I don't know the Canon. I have done rough tests (tripod and newspaper) and when pixel peeping it is sharper than the 18-70 but not quite as sharp as the 50mm 1.8, as you would expect.

Like most lenses it is better stopped down a little but I can only see the difference at 100% on the screen - in practice I am happy to use it wide open.

There is a little barrel distortion at the short end and pincushion at the longer end, but I think this is common to most zooms, at least at this price range. Usually it it not noticeable and I can easily deal with it in PP if necessary.

The VR works very well indeed and more than compensates for the relative slowness of this lens in most circumstances. I still keep the 18-70 for indoor use with bounced flash in poor light (e.g. parties) because I can gain a stop.

It is expensive now, though - I bought mine a couple of years ago before Nikon's big price hike and the crashing currency.
There is a VR version of the 55-200 which is quite a lot cheaper and might serve you just as well.

HTH
 
Yardbent said:
thanks - my thoughts are along these lines too
Click to expand...

Yes Yardbent, I need the D5000 with its animated screen for low angle shots, cant get down and dirty like I used to . . .

I find that the weight of DSLRs are heavy these days, and the 18-200VR super-zoom, phew 'super heavy' :gag:

Then I had a brain storm, . . . 'why':thinking: . . . am I making so much out of a 'hobby' . . . :shrug: So, I made a 'U turn', went all minimalist.

I have considered the 16-85 . . . but finding the 18-70 is doing me OK. If I was pushed and had a fairy god-mother??? . . . it would be for the extra 2mm at the wide end . . . :thinking: . . . but I can live without it ;) not checked out the weights either; . . . 18-70 v 16-85 :shrug:

The bonus, I find the D5000 is more 'user friendly to an old'un like me' . . . holds my hand a bit more, short term memory is not so good these days. But I still get the benefits of the 'heart of a D90'.

I'll be interested to follow which way you go, and how you get on :)

CJS
 
I had a Sigma 17-70...very good lens. I doubt the Nikkor 16-85 would pruduce that much better results with very limited gains in focal length. An expensive DX lens which is becoming less desirable as more people switch to the D700 .
 
I have this lens and find it very good. IMO the images were better than a kit lens I tried.
 
Boldonian said:
An expensive DX lens which is becoming less desirable as more people switch to the D700 .
Click to expand...

I think the amount of people who own a Nikon DX camera, and indeed the D300(S) in particular, far outnumber the D700 owners by many times.

The 16-85mm lens is a DX lens, aimed at DX owners. That is where Nikon make their money. The 16-85mm is quality in the Nikon DX lens line up and the perfect general DX lens for the D300(S) imho. :) To get a lot better, I think you would have to pay a lot more.

It's nice to imagine lots of people with D700s because of the amount of people here who have bought one, but as I always say, we get a skewed view of the photography market following threads on this site. ;) :lol:
 
mrgas said:
Did you get chance to sort any shots ?
no worries if its a hassle...thanks
Click to expand...

sorry - just so busy

here's one at the Glasgow meeting
I dont like the way the image is degraded going through the forum gallery <200kb................but dont have a web account to post to
.
showphoto.php
[/url][/IMG]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top